metroidfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Bull
The hell? Because clearly, if I was going to lie about any of my edits, it would be a trivial note about the internal name of an enemy no one gives a shit about. Why are you making such a big deal out of this one? Why are you requiring this one randomly all of a sudden, and with such stern wording to boot? The program's downloading, you'll have your damn screenshot in a minute, I just don't see what the big deal is at all. Dazuro 07:00, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :Any editor has the right to challenge the validity of any piece of information added to the wiki, whether it be by removing it or requesting a citation (within reason, of course, for example, information that's stated ingame doesn't need to be directly cited source"). You might want to take a gander at this. --[[User:FastLizard4|'FastLizard4']]{ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 07:05, August 14, 2010 (UTC) And yet when I remove speculation it gets put back in because "lots of people believe it." Nice double standards. At least mine's actually factually provable, whether it turned out to be right or wrong. Dazuro 07:06, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :And this puts you in the right how exactly? --[[User:FastLizard4|'FastLizard4']]{ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 07:09, August 14, 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't follow. If you mean regarding my edit about Pipe, I'm right because I provided the evidence you asked for. If it's about my point about the speculation, I'm not justifying anything, just bitching that you people aren't always entirely fair about what requires citations. If you ask, it stays removed until cited. If I do it, I just get told "it's widely believed" and my edits get reverted. If "any editor" has the right, why does it only apply to admins? Dazuro 07:11, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :You have the right. You just have to know how to exercise it properly. And that includes following standard procedure and taking it to the talk page (or to an admin) for further discussion. --[[User:FastLizard4|'FastLizard4']]{ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 07:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC) If people ever actually responded to those, you might have a point. Instead, they get ignored while the problems continue to fester on the pages. I have questions and complaints from literal months ago that I brought up and still have not been addressed, not by random editors or through the alleged patrolling of admins. I'm constantly told "take it to the talk pages," but what's the point? It certainly doesn't help that half of our talk pages don't exist, but misleadingly show up as white links thanks to having the talkheaders, so legitimate discussion gets ignored. But that's neither here nor there, I suppose. Though I must say.... if you're going to be going through removing unsourced things or at least flagging them... how about doing it to speculation, theories and fanwank, instead of things found in the programming? It would certainly be a better use of time spent editing. Nothing wrong with being wary of random facts added to articles, but when it's something like this I just don't see the point (I've been a trusted and reliable editor regarding SM's internal workings for a while now, dating back to the discovery of Stoke--why would I randomly start making up crap now?). Dazuro 07:18, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :Well, all I can say is that, like I said, you are free to challenge the material. If you have a problem with people adding it back after you remove it (or tag it), then try the talk page and/or poke an admin. --[[User:FastLizard4|'FastLizard4']]{ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 07:29, August 14, 2010 (UTC)